The hustings have started allowing members of the Conservative & Unionist Party to choose their next leader and therefore the next Prime Minister.
This blog believes that Boris Johnson is the right man to succeed. Much has been made of his past and his private life. Commentators have trawled his past to expose previous mistakes and reversals forgetting that to err is to be human. Let us not forget that God supported David as King of his people despite being a man of many peccadilloes and Britain's greatest ever leader, Churchill, was, in some respect, no saint. The current widespread interest in a private spat with his girl friend is the business of no one else. Let the innocent cast the first stone.
The past has also exposed Johnson's ability to win the support of the people in elections. The reason, I believe is because he is a natural born leader. Other candidates have removed their ties and jackets to promote a 'matey', man of the people attitude during televised debates, for instance. This is all wrong; what is needed is not a man of the people, a grey, common, but decent person like John Major or Jeremy Hunt. What is required is someone above that status; a superman or woman who stands head and shoulders above the ordinary. In this respect an Etonian education promotes the exposure of these very special people. Hard work and sense of duty, as found in Mrs May, is not good enough; what is required is that touch of undefinable greatness that allows the leader to see the big picture. Do not worry that he hasn't a grasp of the minutiae of every department; he has people to do that; allowing him to lead, to dictate the path ahead, which I suggest Johnson is well disposed to do.
Sunday 23 June 2019
Wednesday 19 June 2019
The stupidity of judges
A judge has found against a cyclist who collided with a pedestrian who had stepped into the road whilst distracted on the mobile phone. The judgement said that the cyclist should exercise greater care in assessing the likelihood of pedestrians straying from the pavement.
What a load of bollocks! The cyclist had NO free will. It surely should be the pedestrian who takes more care not to trespass on to a road where traffic has the right of way.
It should be a matter of concern how stupid our judges are becoming.
What a load of bollocks! The cyclist had NO free will. It surely should be the pedestrian who takes more care not to trespass on to a road where traffic has the right of way.
It should be a matter of concern how stupid our judges are becoming.
Tory selection process
Tory leadership contest. Questions to the candidates from members of the public.
Abdullah: What are you going to do to stamp out Islamophobia in the Tory Party? Words have consequences.
Candidate: Well Abdullah: You are right to ask but let me ask you, what steps are you taking to encourage Muslims to integrate into what is still essentially a Christian Country whose Head of State is ordained in the sight of God, head of the Church of England. What steps are you taking to diminish the standing of the killers of guardsman Rigby, what steps are you taking to stop the gang rape of vulnerable young white girls in Rochdale, Oxford and other towns and cities around the Country? What are you doing to stop Muslims from blowing up scores of innocent people attending a concert, what are you doing to dismantle the so-called sleeper cells waiting for the order to attack soft targets in the UK? What are you doing about arranged marriages and FGM within your community, practices that are abhorrent to the majority of British people? When you have tackled these causes of Islamophobia I'll tell you how we respond and, by the way, the words of the Qu'ran do have consequences.
Abdullah: You're a racist. We have the human right to practice our religion.
Candidate: And you're an idiot. Most Muslims chose to leave a failing Muslim Country to take up residence in what is considered a better Christian Country. How would you describe a person who, in such circumstances, brings his baggage with him and thereby attempts to also ruin his host Country? You are free to practice your religion but you are not free to introduce religious law, sharia, into our secular judiciary. We want to be good hosts but in a two-way deal it behoves on the immigrants to respect the way of life of the welcoming British people and that means you don't cover yourself from head to toe in complete anonymity. It's rude.
Abdullah: What are you going to do to stamp out Islamophobia in the Tory Party? Words have consequences.
Candidate: Well Abdullah: You are right to ask but let me ask you, what steps are you taking to encourage Muslims to integrate into what is still essentially a Christian Country whose Head of State is ordained in the sight of God, head of the Church of England. What steps are you taking to diminish the standing of the killers of guardsman Rigby, what steps are you taking to stop the gang rape of vulnerable young white girls in Rochdale, Oxford and other towns and cities around the Country? What are you doing to stop Muslims from blowing up scores of innocent people attending a concert, what are you doing to dismantle the so-called sleeper cells waiting for the order to attack soft targets in the UK? What are you doing about arranged marriages and FGM within your community, practices that are abhorrent to the majority of British people? When you have tackled these causes of Islamophobia I'll tell you how we respond and, by the way, the words of the Qu'ran do have consequences.
Abdullah: You're a racist. We have the human right to practice our religion.
Candidate: And you're an idiot. Most Muslims chose to leave a failing Muslim Country to take up residence in what is considered a better Christian Country. How would you describe a person who, in such circumstances, brings his baggage with him and thereby attempts to also ruin his host Country? You are free to practice your religion but you are not free to introduce religious law, sharia, into our secular judiciary. We want to be good hosts but in a two-way deal it behoves on the immigrants to respect the way of life of the welcoming British people and that means you don't cover yourself from head to toe in complete anonymity. It's rude.
Tuesday 18 June 2019
Overpopulation. Some jumbled thoughts
A recent report suggests that the population of the world is due to rise to near 11 billion people by 2100 it is currently standing at just over 7 billion. the greatest growth will be found in Africa and South East Asia.
Nature controls populations with predators but to date none, excluding other humans, has been seen among the human race since the bubonic plague decimated communities in the 14th century.
The increased population will mean more food production, less natural habitat for other animal species. many, now, are already close to extinction and will surely go. There must come a point when the globe is full; there is no where else for mankind to go to except space. But is this the legacy of mankind; to lay waste planet after planet, killing the indigenous species? Have we become the very aliens we always feared, travelling through space destroying every planet we colonise.
However, is it possible that nature will redress the balance. If man doesn't take steps to curb their growth nature will do it, either with natural physical effects such as climate change, supervolcanoes, asteroid bombardment or epidemics. But how and why does nature take a hand in this?
Is it because the universe is a composite of two parts, the part we exist in and another, described by Kant as 'transcendental'. This means that planet earth has a counterpart which exists in a symbiotic relationship, ensuring that there is always a balance to maintain an unknown evolutionary advancement. There is no point to this evolution; it just goes on with the natural eradication of life a possibility. Achieving this balance includes the remedies offered above but one mustn't discount the possibility of mankind being responsible for remedy through wars and scientific advancement such as AI.
All the while, science, medicine, works hard to reduce deaths and prolong lifetimes obeying the mantra that 'life is sacred'. Has 'civilised' man got it wrong? Should all life be sacred or just some? Take murderers for example. Should a paedophile who murders his young, innocent victims be maintained at great expense for his life? What about a killer of public servants in the course of their duties? If people need to be culled why not start with these?
When the world cannot support everyone, who next shall be sacrificed? Those who behave unsociably by killing, thieving, or otherwise cheating? But wait a minute; perhaps this is contrary to nature! Nature has cheats in the animal kingdom; they play a part in the grand picture so do they serve a purpose. Pol Pot had a vision whereby he emptied the cities of Cambodia and slaughtered all the intelligentsia, totally at odds with conventional behaviour.
Nature controls populations with predators but to date none, excluding other humans, has been seen among the human race since the bubonic plague decimated communities in the 14th century.
The increased population will mean more food production, less natural habitat for other animal species. many, now, are already close to extinction and will surely go. There must come a point when the globe is full; there is no where else for mankind to go to except space. But is this the legacy of mankind; to lay waste planet after planet, killing the indigenous species? Have we become the very aliens we always feared, travelling through space destroying every planet we colonise.
However, is it possible that nature will redress the balance. If man doesn't take steps to curb their growth nature will do it, either with natural physical effects such as climate change, supervolcanoes, asteroid bombardment or epidemics. But how and why does nature take a hand in this?
Is it because the universe is a composite of two parts, the part we exist in and another, described by Kant as 'transcendental'. This means that planet earth has a counterpart which exists in a symbiotic relationship, ensuring that there is always a balance to maintain an unknown evolutionary advancement. There is no point to this evolution; it just goes on with the natural eradication of life a possibility. Achieving this balance includes the remedies offered above but one mustn't discount the possibility of mankind being responsible for remedy through wars and scientific advancement such as AI.
All the while, science, medicine, works hard to reduce deaths and prolong lifetimes obeying the mantra that 'life is sacred'. Has 'civilised' man got it wrong? Should all life be sacred or just some? Take murderers for example. Should a paedophile who murders his young, innocent victims be maintained at great expense for his life? What about a killer of public servants in the course of their duties? If people need to be culled why not start with these?
When the world cannot support everyone, who next shall be sacrificed? Those who behave unsociably by killing, thieving, or otherwise cheating? But wait a minute; perhaps this is contrary to nature! Nature has cheats in the animal kingdom; they play a part in the grand picture so do they serve a purpose. Pol Pot had a vision whereby he emptied the cities of Cambodia and slaughtered all the intelligentsia, totally at odds with conventional behaviour.
Saturday 15 June 2019
No show Bo-Jo
Reporter: Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson, did to ever snort cocaine?
Bo-Jo: Mind your own fucking business.
Reporter: But don't the British people deserve to know?
Bo-Jo: What bloody business is it of theirs if I did or did not. We all do things when we were younger; it would be weird if we did not. What is important is whether I can fulfill the role of Prime Minister and I'm here to tell you I can and will.
Reporter: Mr Johnson why don't you speak to us?
Bo-jo. Because you don't ask sensible questions. All you want to do is ask prurient questions regarding my habits and proclivities; headline grabbing nonsense that says more about you or your reader's inadequacies. and yes, before you ask, I did masturbate as a teenager, I lusted after women; yes, that's right, women, not men, and I drank. often to excess. In other words, I'm normal except that I am blessed with the ability to win elections. Now bugger off the lot of you.
Bo-Jo: Mind your own fucking business.
Reporter: But don't the British people deserve to know?
Bo-Jo: What bloody business is it of theirs if I did or did not. We all do things when we were younger; it would be weird if we did not. What is important is whether I can fulfill the role of Prime Minister and I'm here to tell you I can and will.
Reporter: Mr Johnson why don't you speak to us?
Bo-jo. Because you don't ask sensible questions. All you want to do is ask prurient questions regarding my habits and proclivities; headline grabbing nonsense that says more about you or your reader's inadequacies. and yes, before you ask, I did masturbate as a teenager, I lusted after women; yes, that's right, women, not men, and I drank. often to excess. In other words, I'm normal except that I am blessed with the ability to win elections. Now bugger off the lot of you.
Friday 7 June 2019
Waste food
A recent report says that a third of households routinely throw away left over food.
This is not good enough and unforgiveable as it is easy to recycle food with a little ingenuity and common sense. Remember the traditional soup menu. On Monday it is leek and potato: Tuesday, vegetable: Wednesday Beef and vegetable, Thursday, brown Windsor and Friday, mulligatawny. The same can be done with other foods, apart from saving to reheat on following days. In this respect a microwave is indispensable. Cold cuts of meat, chicken, pork, beef, sausages roasts, whatever can be finely chopped up, mixed with bread crumbs and egg to create rissoles. This does not take up much time but there is a wider issue.
It is our duty to use to the full the bounty afforded to us by nature. No vegetable should be disrespected by discarding rather than consuming. Animals and crops are given for human consumption and it is criminal that they should perish in vain. don't throw away a carrot because it has a blemish or has gone soft. Cut out the blemish and carry on, knowing that the vegetable will have fulfilled its purpose as nature intended.
This is not good enough and unforgiveable as it is easy to recycle food with a little ingenuity and common sense. Remember the traditional soup menu. On Monday it is leek and potato: Tuesday, vegetable: Wednesday Beef and vegetable, Thursday, brown Windsor and Friday, mulligatawny. The same can be done with other foods, apart from saving to reheat on following days. In this respect a microwave is indispensable. Cold cuts of meat, chicken, pork, beef, sausages roasts, whatever can be finely chopped up, mixed with bread crumbs and egg to create rissoles. This does not take up much time but there is a wider issue.
It is our duty to use to the full the bounty afforded to us by nature. No vegetable should be disrespected by discarding rather than consuming. Animals and crops are given for human consumption and it is criminal that they should perish in vain. don't throw away a carrot because it has a blemish or has gone soft. Cut out the blemish and carry on, knowing that the vegetable will have fulfilled its purpose as nature intended.
Saturday 1 June 2019
Army to support police patrols?
Quite rightly, the number of policemen employed by the state was reduced as crime fell after the millennium. Not only did reducing numbers directly cut the wages bill it also reduced the burden on the public purse of pension payments.
But now, as street crime. particularly violent offences, rise, there is a clamouring for more policemen at a time when budgets continue to be squeezed. What is the solution?
May I suggest that patrolling policemen, bobbies on the beat, might be replaced by others, already trained in patrolling and surveillance and, most importantly, available without additional costs. Could it not be possible that troops, not on active service, be used in this capacity. They need not physically carry arms but should be side armed, could wear specially designed uniforms and have the right to detain suspects using powers of citizen's arrest.
There are benefits for the troops, bored with little or no action when barracked. It keeps them sharp and enhances skills. Troops of different regiments can be rotated in different towns and cities so as reduce effects of accumulated antagonism.
But now, as street crime. particularly violent offences, rise, there is a clamouring for more policemen at a time when budgets continue to be squeezed. What is the solution?
May I suggest that patrolling policemen, bobbies on the beat, might be replaced by others, already trained in patrolling and surveillance and, most importantly, available without additional costs. Could it not be possible that troops, not on active service, be used in this capacity. They need not physically carry arms but should be side armed, could wear specially designed uniforms and have the right to detain suspects using powers of citizen's arrest.
There are benefits for the troops, bored with little or no action when barracked. It keeps them sharp and enhances skills. Troops of different regiments can be rotated in different towns and cities so as reduce effects of accumulated antagonism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
